1: % Template article for New Astronomy

2: 

3: \documentclass{elsart}

4: 

5: % the harvard package allows Harvard style referencing

6: %\usepackage{harvard}

7: \usepackage{natbib}

8: \usepackage{graphicx}

9: 

10: % if you use PostScript figures in your article

11: % use the graphics package for simple commands

12: % \usepackage{graphics}

13: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands

14: % \usepackage{graphicx}

15: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands

16: % \usepackage{epsfig}

17: 

18: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols

19: \usepackage{amssymb}

20: \usepackage{amsmath}

21: \usepackage{bm}

22: 

23: % definitions for astronomical objects, hyperlinks and ADS bibcodes

24: \def\astrobj#1{#1}

25: \def\url#1{{\ttfamily\def\/{/\discretionary{}{}{}}#1}}

26: %\def\bibcode#1{(\texttt{#1})}

27: \def\bibcode#1{}

28: \def\ellb{\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}}

29: \def\thetab{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

30: \begin{document}

31: 

32: \begin{frontmatter}

33: \title{Finding Clusters in SZ Surveys}

34: \author[address1]{Chris Vale\thanksref{cvemail}},

35: \author[address1,address2]{Martin White\thanksref{mwemail}}

36: \address[address1]{Department of Physics, University of California,

37: Berkeley, CA, 94720}

38: \address[address2]{Department of Astronomy, University of California,

39: Berkeley, CA, 94720}

40: \thanks[cvemail]{E-mail: cvale@astro.berkeley.edu}

41: \thanks[mwemail]{E-mail: mwhite@astro.berkeley.edu}

42: 

43: \begin{abstract} 

44: We use simulated maps to investigate the ability of high resolution, low 

45: noise surveys of the CMB to create catalogues of Clusters of galaxies by 

46: detecting the characteristic signature imprinted by the Sunyaev Zeldovich 

47: effect.  We compute the completeness of the catalogues in our simulations 

48: for several survey strategies, and evaluate the relative merit of some 

49: Fourier and wavelet based filtering techniques.

50: \end{abstract}

51: 

52: \begin{keyword}

53: Cosmology \sep Large-Scale structures \sep Theory

54: \PACS 98.65.Dx \sep 98.80.Es \sep 98.70.Vc

55: \end{keyword}

56: \end{frontmatter}

57: 

58: \section{Introduction}

59: 

60: Future measurement of the distribution and number density of clusters of 

61: galaxies will place increasingly important constraints on the nature 

62: of the universe we live in \cite[e.g. ][]{Bahcall99,RBN02,Voit04}, 

63: and is a major science goal of upcoming surveys such as 

64: SZA\footnote{http://astro.uchicago.edu/sza/},

65: APEX-SZ\footnote{http://bolo.berkeley.edu/apexsz/},

66: the South Pole Telescope (SPT\footnote{http://astro.uchicago.edu/spt/})

67: and the Atacama Cosmology Telescope

68: (ACT\footnote{http://www.hep.upenn.edu/$\sim$angelica/act/act.html})  

69: These surveys will map the millimeter and 

70: sub-millimeter sky with unprecedented power and resolution, which will 

71: enable the construction of a catalogue of clusters detected through the 

72: thermal Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect (SZE) 

73: \citep[][for recent reviews see \citealt{Reph95,Birk99,Carl02}]{SZ72,SZ80}

74: In this paper, we examine different survey strategies 

75: and signal processing methodologies to enhance this effort.

76: 

77: The imprint of the SZE on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is 

78: an integrated effect from the time of last scattering to the present era, 

79: and as such the SZE signal suffers from projection effects due to other 

80: objects along the line of sight.  This introduces non-linear complications 

81: to our signal processing efforts, and makes it impossible to conclusively 

82: determine the best method by analytic means alone.  We therefore test 

83: and compare three promising filtering techniques: discrete wavelets, 

84: continuous wavelets, and Fourier methods.  These are applied to mock SZ maps 

85: for several different survey strategies, and results for the different 

86: strategies and filters are computed.

87: 

88: The mock SZ maps are created using an N-body simulation of sufficient volume 

89: to be a fair sample of the universe.  Due to the current uncertainty in 

90: both the magnitude of the SZE and of relevant astrophysical foregrounds, 

91: a detailed modeling of the signal and noise is not currently possible.  

92: However, some of the complications that will be encountered by actual 

93: surveys, such as confusion due to projection effects, irregularly shaped 

94: sources, maps with edges and holes, and spatially varying noise, are 

95: included in our tests prospective filters.

96: 

97: The outline of the paper is as follows.  We describe our simulations in 

98: Section \ref{sec:simulations} and our filtering schemes in 

99: Section \ref{sec:wavelets}.  We then present our results in the context of 

100: various survey scenarios and signal processing techniques in 

101: Section \ref{sec:results}, and discuss our conclusions in 

102: Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.

103: 

104: \section{Simulating the SZE} \label {sec:simulations}

105: 

106: \begin{figure}

107: \begin{center}

108: {\includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig1a.ps}

109:  \includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig1b.ps}}

110: {\includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig1c.ps}

111:  \includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig1d.ps}}

112: \end{center}

113: \caption{An example of the maps before filtering.  The full map (top left) 

114: includes the SZE signal (which shows up as cold spots on the map) and all 

115: sources of ``noise''.  Since the signal is overwhelmed by the primary CMB on 

116: the angular scale shown here, we display the same map without the CMB 

117: (top right), but still including point source and instrument noise.  

118: The relative importance of these two effects can be seen in the bottom maps, 

119: where we have displayed the SZE with point sources but no instrument noise 

120: (left) and vice versa (right).  The maps are 

121: $3^{\circ} \times 3^{\circ}$ and contain $1024^2$ pixels, rebinned to 

122: $256^2$ for display.  The color scale of the maps is linear, and 

123: span $100 \mu$K, except for the map including the primary CMB, 

124: which spans $500 \mu$K.  This particular map is made at 150 GHz for a 12 

125: meter dish, assuming $10 \mu$K-arcmin of instrument noise, and with point 

126: source contributions near the high end of the expected magnitude.}

127: \label{fig:maps}

128: \end{figure}

129: Since we use the method outlined in \cite{SW03} to create maps of the SZE, we 

130: provide only a brief description here.  The maps are created from a large 

131: volume, high resolution N-body simulation containing a fair sample of the 

132: universe, for a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with 

133: $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.02$, $h = 0.7$, and $\sigma_8 = 1$.  

134: We use a semi-analytic model, in which baryonic matter traces the dark 

135: matter in our clusters, in order to include the gas physics responsible 

136: for the SZE.  This assumption is likely to be a good approximation 

137: everywhere except at the cluster cores, which will not be resolved by the 

138: surveys considered here.  We identify clusters in the N-body simulation 

139: using a friends-of-friends (FOF) algorithm \citep{Davis85} with a linking 

140: length $b = 0.15$ times the mean interparticle spacing.  The mass contained 

141: by hot gas is set to $\Omega_b / \Omega_m$ of the total, and each cluster 

142: is set to be isothermal at a temperature given by

143: \begin{equation} \label{eq:clustertemp}

144: {k_B T \over keV}  \sim 

145: \left ( {H(z) M \over 10^{15} h^{-1} M_\odot } \right )^{2 / 3} 

146: \end{equation}

147: where $H(z)$ is the hubble parameter.  This effectively reproduces the results 

148: of the hydrodynamic simulations of \cite{WHS02}.  The normalization has been 

149: set to pass through the lower envelope of the CBI deep field \citep{Mason03} 

150: and through the BIMA point \citep{Dawson01} on small angular scales.  We 

151: generate Compton-Y maps by projecting along each line of sight, so that

152: \begin{equation} \label{eq:comptony}

153: y=\int \sigma_T n_{e}{k_B T \over m_{e} c^2} dl \qquad

154: \end{equation}

155: where $\sigma_T$ is the Thompson scattering cross section, $n_e$ is the 

156: electron number density, and $m_e$ is the electron mass.  The temperature 

157: fluctuation for a given frequency $\nu$ is related to the Y-maps by

158: \begin{equation} \label{eq:DeltaTonT}

159: {\Delta T \over T} = y \left ( x {e^x + 1 \over e^x -1} - 4 \right )

160: \end{equation}

161: where $x = h \nu / k_B T_{CMB} \simeq \nu / 56.84$GHz is the dimensionless 

162: frequency.  Ten maps are made in this manner (see Figure \ref{fig:maps} for 

163: an example), each with $1024^2$ pixels and $3^\circ$ on a side.  These are 

164: not as accurate as those produced using full hydrodynamic simulations, but 

165: they allow us to probe a larger volume and therfore provide a better sample 

166: of large clusters situated in their proper cosmological context.

167: 

168: In the absence of perfect spectral information, confusion due to the primary 

169: CMB temperature anisotropy and to point sources may impede the detection of 

170: clusters.  We simulate the former using realizations of a Gaussian 

171: random fields convolved with the CMB power spectrum computed using 

172: CMBfast \citep{SeZa96}.  We then add radio and infrared (IR) point sources to 

173: the maps using the model of \cite{WM04}.  For radio sources, this 

174: is a fit to the Q-band data of WMAP \citep{Bennett03}, while IR 

175: sources are fit using the 350 GHz observations of \cite{Borys03} 

176: with the Submillimeter Common User Bolometer Array 

177: \citep[SCUBA:][]{Holland99} on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope.  We 

178: note that there is substantial uncertainty in extrapolating these fits 

179: to frequencies relevant to us here, so we examine two different 

180: extrapolations likely to span the magnitude of the effect.

181: 

182: The maps are then smoothed with a Gaussian beam, and Gaussian white noise is 

183: added.  Although we have ignored many effects which may be important in real 

184: world observations (such as offsets, drifts, and atmosphere), we treat the 

185: maps as completed and ready for signal processing.  

186: 

187: \section{Filtering methods} \label{sec:wavelets}

188: 

189: In this section, we describe the filters we use to process the simulated 

190: maps discussed in Section \ref{sec:simulations}.  These maps have a 

191: complex structure which makes it impossible to analytically determine 

192: the best filter to aid our efforts at cluster identification, so we 

193: explore several different methods.  We begin by describing 

194: the optimal Fourier based filter of \cite{Tegmark98}, 

195: then briefly describe filtering in the discrete wavelet basis, where we 

196: focus on the Daubechies wavelet family \citep{Daub92}.  Finally, we 

197: discuss filtering using the continuous mexican hat wavelet filter 

198: \cite[see][for more discussion of filtering with continuous 

199: wavelets]{Pierpaoli04}.

200: 

201: The signal power in the SZE is expected to exceed that of the primary CMB 

202: and (for a sufficiently powerful survey) instrument noise on roughly arcminute 

203: scales (Figure \ref{fig:szwindow}).  The optimal filter derived in 

204: \cite{Tegmark98} 

205: is essentially a bandpass window which can be centered on the appropriate 

206: angular scale, and is therefor an obvious candidate for our purpose.  

207: This filter is azimuthally symmetric, and its radial dependence in 

208: Fourier space is

209: \begin{equation} \label{eq:tegfilt}

210: \tilde{\psi}_{match}(\ell) \sim 

211: {e^{\theta^2 \ell(\ell +1)/2} \over C_{\ell}^{\rm{Tot}} }

212: \end{equation}

213: where $\theta$ is the full width half max (FWHM) beam size and 

214: $ C_{\ell}^{\rm{Tot}}$ is the total power spectrum of all ``noise''.  

215: See Figure \ref{fig:szwindow} for an example of this filter appropriate 

216: for our fiducial surveys.

217: \begin{figure}

218: \begin{center}

219: {\includegraphics*[height=4.8cm]{fig2a.ps}

220: \includegraphics*[height=4.8cm]{fig2b.ps}}

221: \end{center}

222: \caption{(Left) The expected magnitude of the SZE, the CMB, and 

223: instrument noise for a fiducial $10 \mu K$ per $1^{\prime}$ beam survey, 

224: shown here in Fourier space.  The SZE signal exceeds both the noise and 

225: CMB on roughly arcminute scales.  (Right) The optimal and mexican hat 

226: filters in Fourier space.  The filters are wedge shaped band pass filters, 

227: designed to pass scales where the SZE is large relative to the CMB and 

228: instrument noise.}

229: \label{fig:szwindow}

230: \end{figure}

231: 

232: Wavelets have emerged as a powerful tool for signal processing 

233: \cite[see the Appendix for a brief discussion and e.g.][for a 

234: review of wavelet signal processing]{Mallat99}.  

235: They are simultaneously (but imperfectly) localized in both real space and 

236: Fourier space, and are therefore a natural choice for processing data 

237: which possesses both real space and Fourier space correlations, such 

238: as we expect from our fiducial surveys.  We employ the wavelet transform 

239: algorithm outlined in \cite{Press92}, and although we focus on the 

240: Daubechies wavelets, we note that we have also explored the Coiflet, 

241: Symlet, and Morlet wavelet families, and as these offer essentially 

242: the same results as the Daubechies wavelets, we do not discuss 

243: them further.  

244: 

245: To generate our filter, we follow \cite{Pen99} and estimate the 

246: expected signal given data $\langle S | D \rangle$ for each coefficient in 

247: the wavelet transform.  This amounts to Wiener filtering 

248: in the limit of Gaussian noise and Gaussian signal, and to 

249: thresholding for highly non-Gaussian signal distributions, such as unsmoothed 

250: point sources.  This approach is likely to be superior (in the sense of 

251: minimizing the least squared error in the reconstruction) if the 

252: signal or noise include substantial non-Gaussian behavior, but requires that 

253: the signal and noise probability density functions (PDF) be known.  

254: Although \cite{Pen99} suggests computing $\langle S | D \rangle$ directly 

255: from the non-Gaussian behavior of the observed maps, we find that the 

256: procedure outlined there is subject to numerical artifacts due to the 

257: finite size of sky in our simulations, so we compute this function directly 

258: from our 10 input signal maps.  This will not be possible for real surveys, 

259: and so should be considered an upper limit to the performance of the 

260: technique.  

261: 

262: We implement a third class of filter, the continuous wavelet filter, using 

263: the mexican hat wavelet transform \citep[e.g. ][]{Cayon00,Maisinger04}.  The 

264: continuous wavelet transform $W(a,b)$ of a one dimensional function $f(x)$ 

265: is a real space convolution of $f(x)$ with a ``mother wavelet'' $\psi(x)$

266: \begin{equation} \label{eq:continuous}

267: W(a,b) = \int dx f(x) {1 \over \sqrt{a}} \psi \left ( {x - b \over a} \right )

268: \end{equation}

269: where $a$ and $b$ are the scale and position parameters.  This convolution 

270: is normally performed as a multiplication in the Fourier domain, so that 

271: $\tilde{W} = \sqrt{a} \tilde{f}(\ell) \tilde{\psi}(a \ell)$, 

272: where the tilde denotes the Fourier transform.  The mexican hat wavelet is 

273: the second derivative of a Gaussian, so that its Fourier transform is

274: \begin{equation} \label{eq:mexhat}

275: \tilde{\psi}_{mex}(a \ell) \sim ( a \ell)^2 \rm{exp} 

276: \left [ - {(a \ell)^2 \over 2} \right ]

277: \end{equation}

278: Like the optimal filter, the continuous wavelet transform is essentially 

279: a filter in Fourier space, as can be seen in the side by side comparison 

280: in Figure \ref{fig:szwindow}.  

281: 

282: In the next section, we demonstrate the use of these filters on the simulated 

283: maps described in Section \ref{sec:simulations} for various survey 

284: strategies.

285: \begin{figure}

286: \begin{center}

287: {\includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig3a.ps}

288: \includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig3b.ps}}

289: {\includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig3c.ps}

290: \includegraphics*[height=6.8cm,width=6.8cm]{fig3d.ps}}

291: \end{center}

292: \caption{The input SZE (top left) and the filtered maps for the discrete 

293: Daubechies wavelet filter (top right), the mexican hat continuous wavelet 

294: filter (bottom left), and for the optimal Fourier filter (bottom right).  

295: The color scale is linear, and structures 

296: less than $1 \sigma$ of the noise have been suppressed for visual clarity.}

297: \label{fig:filtermaps}

298: \end{figure}

299: 

300: \section{Results} \label{sec:results}

301: 

302: In this section, we examine the maps after application of the filters 

303: described in Section \ref{sec:wavelets}.  As can be seen in the examples 

304: shown in Figure \ref{fig:filtermaps}, 

305: the three filters clearly all succeed in improving signal 

306: to noise, with large structures in the filtered maps all corresponding to 

307: massive clusters.  We quantify the level of this success using the peak 

308: finding algorithm of \cite{SW03}, and conclude that for the surveys we 

309: consider here, the optimal filter performs at least as well as the 

310: wavelet based filters for creating complete, efficient surveys of clusters.  

311: We then examine cluster finding in the context of several survey strategies.

312: 

313: Of the three filtered maps shown here, the one created using the discrete 

314: wavelet (specifically, Daub6) ``$\langle S | D \rangle$'' technique 

315: described in Section \ref{sec:wavelets} best reconstructs the input SZE 

316: signal in the sense of minimizing the least squared error of the 

317: reconstruction.  However, this reconstruction does not do as well at 

318: creating complete, efficient surveys of clusters.  This is because a 

319: large fraction of the improved signal recovery is associated with a few 

320: giant clusters.  Since these produce enormous signal, they are easy to 

321: find, regardless of the filter, and improving their reconstruction 

322: does not aid in the completeness of the catalogue.  However, these 

323: clusters have signal on relatively large angular scales, so that the 

324: ``$\langle S | D \rangle$'' technique smooths the maps more than is 

325: optimal for finding smaller clusters at the threshold of detection.  

326: Although this can be accounted for by eliminating the large clusters from 

327: consideration when formulating the filter, the result is to simply 

328: scale the signal by a constant at each level, so that the smaller 

329: cluster signal is effectively in the Wiener filter limit.  Although we do 

330: not show them here, we have also considered maps with holes, rough edges, 

331: and spatially varying noise.  The wavelet filter performs better in this 

332: context than the other filters for extreme conditions, but there is no 

333: detectable advantage for realistic assumptions.  

334: \begin{figure}

335: \begin{center}

336: {\includegraphics*[height=5.8cm]{fig4a.ps}

337: \includegraphics*[height=5.8cm]{fig4b.ps}}

338: \end{center}

339: \caption{Clusters found (left) and missed (right) as a function of mass and 

340: redshift for our fiducial $10 \ \mu$K per arcminute beam survey.  The survey 

341: size is 90 square degrees, and we have required a 75\% detection efficiency 

342: for clusters of mass above $10^{14} \ \rm{M}_\odot$.}

343: \label{fig:foundmissed}

344: \end{figure}

345: 

346: \begin{figure}

347: \begin{center}

348: {\includegraphics*[height=8.5cm,width=5.5in]{fig5.ps}}

349: \end{center}

350: \caption{The number of massive clusters associated with the 5000 largest 

351: peaks in the filtered signal for our 10 maps, shown here in descending 

352: order of signal strength, for our fiducial $10 \ \mu$K per arcminute 

353: beam survey.  The largest signal peaks are always associated 

354: with a cluster.  However, noise and projection effects cause 

355: substantial scatter in the mass-observable relation.  In the small 

356: signal regime, this scatter begins to dominate, so that many 

357: smaller peaks are not associated with a cluster of mass 

358: $\rm{M} > 10^{14} \ \rm{M}_\odot$.  We note that there are a total of 

359: 1900 clusters in the (solid) mass range of 

360: $10^{14} < \rm{M} < 2 \times 10^{14} \ \rm{M}_\odot$ 

361: and 550 of (dashed) mass $ \rm{M} > 2 \times 10^{14} \ \rm{M}_\odot$ 

362: in our simulation.}

363: \label{fig:completeness1}

364: \end{figure}

365: 

366: \begin{figure}

367: \begin{center}

368: {\includegraphics*[height=8.5cm,width=5.5in]{fig6.ps}}

369: \end{center}

370: \caption{Completeness of clusters detected above a mass threshold for three 

371: survey strategies as a function of the number of signal peaks included in the 

372: analysis.  The upper family 

373: of curves is the completeness for clusters of mass greater than 

374: $2.0 \times 10^{14} \ \rm{M}_\odot$, while the lower family is for clusters of 

375: mass less than this but greater than 

376: $1.5 \times 10^{14} \ \rm{M}_\odot$.  The efficiency for a threshold mass of 

377: $10^{14} \ \rm{M}_\odot$ for one survey is also shown.  The totals are derived 

378: from ten $3^{\circ} \times 3^{\circ}$ simulated maps.}

379: \label{fig:completeness}

380: \end{figure}

381: The mexican hat filter and the optimal filter of \cite{Tegmark98} perform 

382: about equally well.  In fact, we find that the primary CMB anisotropy is 

383: easy to separate morphologically from the SZE for the small beam sizes 

384: we consider here, and any reasonable hi-pass filter can be used for 

385: this task.  If the two filters are then set to be roughly the same on small 

386: angular scales, then they perform about equally well at cluster finding.  In 

387: particular, we find that for clusters which are smaller than 

388: the beam of the survey, simply smoothing the noisy maps by the beam 

389: performs best for small scale filtering.

390: 

391: We use two methods to identify signal peaks in the filtered maps.  The 

392: first simply flags local maxima, while the second computes the total 

393: flux in all pixels surrounding (and including) the local maxima which are 

394: greater than one quarter the peak value.  Since the choice of method does 

395: not significantly alter our results, the results presented here are for the 

396: simpler local maxima technique unless stated otherwise.

397: 

398: Once we have identified signal peaks in the maps, we compare these to a 

399: list of clusters in our simulation.  As can be seen in 

400: Figure \ref{fig:foundmissed}, massive clusters are nearly always 

401: identified using this method, while no particular dependence on 

402: redshift is evident.  Also, large signal peaks are nearly always 

403: associated with a cluster (Figure \ref{fig:completeness1}), although 

404: noise and projection effects cause substantial scatter in the 

405: mass-observable relation.  The efficiency of the survey (that is, 

406: the chance that a signal peak corresponds to a cluster) is therefor 

407: nearly 100\% for large peaks.  

408: 

409: We now turn our attention to survey strategy, where we examine the 

410: use of multiple vs single frequency measurements.  Although the primary CMB 

411: anisotropy is not a serious contaminant, contributions from point sources 

412: are non-negligible.  Spectral information can alleviate this issue, but at 

413: the price of either reduced signal to instrument noise, or less sky coverage, 

414: per unit of telescope time.  If only a single frequency is used, then point 

415: source contributions must be considered in addition to signal strength, 

416: instrument noise, and beam size.  

417: 

418: To investigate this issue, we begin with a fiducial survey at 150 GHz for a 

419: 12 meter dish (roughly a $0.^{'} 8$ beam at 150 GHz) and $10 \mu$K-arcmin 

420: instrument noise over our 90 square degrees of simulated sky.  As expected, 

421: this survey does well at cluster identification in the absence of point 

422: sources.  However, including them substantially worsens the result 

423: (Figure \ref{fig:completeness}), even for a level at the low end of the 

424: expected confusion noise, and a deeper integration at the same frequency only 

425: marginally improves the outcome.  A better result is achieved by combining 

426: the 150 GHz survey with a 220 GHz observation and differencing the results to 

427: remove the point source contribution.  Although the 220 GHz channel contains 

428: no signal and is noisier than the 150 GHz channel 

429: (we assume $\sim 15 \mu$K-arcmin for the same integration time), the 

430: effective signal to instrument noise is only marginally worse.  This is 

431: because the point source contribution is roughly twice as large at 220 GHz as 

432: it is at 150 GHz, so that (roughly speaking) the point source elimination is 

433: accomplished by including only half the noise of the instrument noise at 220 

434: GHz.  Added in quadrature, this is effectively a $12 \mu$K-arcmin survey.

435: \begin{figure}

436: \begin{center}

437: {\includegraphics*[height=5.3cm]{fig7a.ps}

438: \includegraphics*[height=5.3cm]{fig7b.ps}}

439: \end{center}

440: \caption{The number of galaxies brighter than (left) R = 24 and 

441: (right) R = 25 within the virial radius of clusters in our sample 

442: with mass greater than $10^{14} \rm{M}_\odot$ and at redshift 

443: $Z<1$.  The number within the core region, where the contrast 

444: against the background is highest, is about 10\% of $N_{gal}(< r_{200})$.}

445: \label{fig:ngal24}

446: \end{figure}

447: 

448: An alternative strategy is explored in the form of a single frequency 

449: survey at 95 GHz.  This offers the advantage of a larger signal and lower 

450: point source contamination, but is noisier (we assume $17 \mu$K-arcmin for 

451: equal integration time) and has a larger ($\sim 1.^{`} 3$) beam.  This 

452: results in improved detections, and although the level of improvement 

453: depends upon the model of point source confusion assumed, this survey 

454: strategy is superior in our simulations for the models we have considered 

455: here.  We have not accounted for clustering of point sources, 

456: which may change this result.

457: 

458: Finally, we note that optical and near-IR emission is still the least 

459: expensive way of measuring cluster redshifts, and that redshift 

460: information is crucial to the physical interpretation of the cluster 

461: sample.  We use the method outlined in \cite{White03} to provide a 

462: rough estimate (Figure \ref{fig:ngal24}) of the number of galaxies 

463: brighter than $R=24$ and $R=25$ within the virial radius of the 

464: clusters detected (at 75\% efficiency above mass 

465: $M > 10^{14} \ M_{\odot}$ and at redshift $Z < 1$) in our fiducial 

466: survey.  The number in the core region, where the contrast against the 

467: background is the highest, will obviously be smaller.  If the galaxies 

468: follow the mass, approximately 20\% of the galaxies lie within the break 

469: radius ($0.2r_{200}$) and 8\% within the core radius ($0.1r_{200}$).  

470: Although the results we show here are for clusters at redshift $Z < 1$, 

471: the results for higher redshifts will clearly be somewhat worse.  

472: Optical follow up will no doubt be an integral but challenging complement 

473: to an SZE cluster survey similar to that discussed here.

474: 

475: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}

476: 

477: Measurement of the CMB using the unprecedented combination of power, 

478: resolution, and sky coverage expected in upcoming surveys will return a 

479: wealth of information, including high resolution detections in the SZE sky 

480: sufficient to provide enormous catalogues of galaxy clusters.  We have 

481: studied the use of several filtering techniques to aid the cluster 

482: identification process, and evaluated the likely detection of clusters 

483: using simulated maps of the CMB.  We note that while further signal analysis 

484: will be required to optimally measure cluster properties, we have not 

485: addressed that issue here.

486: 

487: We have tested three filter techniques, using Fourier methods, continuous 

488: wavelets, and discrete wavelets, and have found that all of these can 

489: be efficiently used to enhance the signal to noise in our maps.  Although 

490: the discrete wavelets perform better under some extreme conditions, we 

491: find that each of these techniques may be used effectively to aid cluster 

492: detection.  

493: 

494: We have also examined the success of survey strategies in creating complete 

495: catalogues of clusters for a given mass threshold.  We find that the primary 

496: CMB anisotropy is not an important source of noise for the high resolution 

497: surveys we have considered here, but that point sources may in some cases be 

498: more important than instrument noise.  Accordingly, multi-frequency 

499: measurements are likely required if the sky is probed in frequency bands 

500: where point sources are large relative to the signal strength.  A single 

501: frequency band may be used effectively if the band center is selected at a 

502: frequency where point source contamination is not expected to overwhelm the 

503: signal.  We note that the magnitude of the point source confusion and 

504: clustering are not as yet well measured at frequencies relevant to us here, 

505: so that we are dependent upon models for our results.  

506: 

507: A well understood, nearly complete catalogue of massive clusters over a 

508: large fraction of the sky would be a major achievement for cosmology, and 

509: will likely be available in the near future as powerful surveys begin 

510: operation.  The road to optimizing the results includes a determination 

511: of the best survey strategies and signal processing techniques, and in this 

512: endeavor, simulations can play an important role.  We have made the raw 

513: maps, along with some auxiliary data products, freely available to the 

514: community at http://mwhite.berkeley.edu/ in the hope that they will be 

515: useful in taking the next step.

516: 

517: CV would like to thank J.D. Cohn, Tom Crawford, Steve Myers, and Wayne Hu 

518: for useful discussions.  The simulations used here were performed on the 

519: IBM-SP at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.

520: This research was supported by the NSF and NASA.

521: 

522: \appendix \section{Appendix:  Wavelets} \label{sec:appendix}

523: 

524: In this section, we provide a brief discussion of discrete wavelets to 

525: orient the reader \citep[see e.g.][for a more substantial introduction to 

526: wavelet signal processing]{Mallat99}.  

527: To get a feel for wavelets, let us consider the first order Daubechies 

528: wavelet, Daub1, also called the Haar wavelet.  In one dimension, the 

529: first level (not to be confused with order) Daub1 transform involves 

530: computing the two pixel average 

531: $\mathbf{a}$ and difference $\mathbf{d}$ of a signal 

532: $\mathbf{f}  = (f_1, f_2, \dots, f_N)$, so that the elements $a_m$ of 

533: $\mathbf{a}$ are defined by

534: \begin{equation} \label{eq:trend}

535: a_m = {f_{2m-1} + f_{2m} \over \sqrt{2}}

536: \end{equation}

537: and similarly for $\mathbf{d}$, but with a minus sign on the right hand side 

538: of Eq.(\ref{eq:trend}).  Like all discrete wavelet transforms, the Daub1 

539: transform decomposes a signal into two subsignals half the length of the 

540: original:  a running average $\mathbf{a}$ called the trend, and a running 

541: difference $\mathbf{d}$ called the fluctuation.  Note that this transform is 

542: linear, invertible, and preserves the total sum of squares of the pixels 

543: (the latter is often called ``conservation of energy'' in wavelet parlance).  

544: For higher order transforms, the trend and fluctuation subsignals are no 

545: longer simple averages and differences (for example, the Daub2 transform uses 

546: a four pixel linear fit rather than a two pixel average), but the basic idea 

547: is the same.

548: 

549: An essential component of wavelet based analysis is the simultaneous 

550: processing of data at multiple scales.  This ``Multi-Resolution Analysis'' 

551: (MRA) is implemented by a hierarchical application of the wavelet transform 

552: on the data, so that the first level transform, which probes the smallest 

553: physical (and highest frequency) scales, is applied to the original signal.  

554: The second level transform is then computed by taking the wavelet transform of 

555: the first level trend signal, and so on, so that for an $\rm{n}^{th}$ level 

556: transform, the result is a single trend $\mathbf{a^n}$ and n fluctuations 

557: $\mathbf{d}^1, \mathbf{d}^2, \dots, \mathbf{d}^n$.  

558: \begin{figure}

559: \begin{center}

560: {\includegraphics*[height=8.5cm,width=5.5in]{fig8.ps}}

561: \end{center}

562: \caption{The SZE signal is comparable to the level of confusion from the 

563: primary CMB and instrument noise on intermediate angular scales.  Here, 

564: we display this effect for the $6^{th}$ order Daubechies wavelet, and the 

565: resulting level dependent filter.  }

566: \label{fig:daub6}

567: \end{figure}

568: 

569: Most discrete wavelet filtering techniques are based on the ``thresholding'' 

570: modality, where wavelet coefficients with an absolute value less than a 

571: chosen threshold value are discarded.  This is effective when the signal is 

572: much larger than the noise, and when the goal is to recover an image which 

573: is visually appealing to the human eye.  An approach more suited to our 

574: purpose is to attempt to reconstruct the signal with a minimum least 

575: squared error.  For a Gaussian signal and uncorrelated Gaussian noise, 

576: this implies a Wiener filter in Fourier space.  The equivalent filter in 

577: wavelet space can be constructed by estimating the energy of the signal 

578: divided by the data for each level and scaling the transformed data at each 

579: level by this ratio.  The required estimate of the signal energy can be 

580: obtained either using simulations, or directly from the data if the 

581: noise is well understood.  We show an example of this filter for the Daub6 

582: wavelet in Figure \ref{fig:daub6}.

583: 

584: One simple use of a wavelet filter is to account for spatially varying 

585: noise.  If the statistical properties of the noise is known as a function 

586: of position, then a wavelet filter can adjust to accommodate this in a 

587: more natural way than filters with no localized spatial properties.  We 

588: show an example of this in Figure \ref{fig:varynoise} vs. the optimal 

589: filter, for an extreme case where the noise fluctuates by a factor of several 

590: hundred in the maps.  Although the reconstruction is notably improved in 

591: this highly artificial case, no improvement was evident in our maps 

592: for more realistic noise.

593: \begin{figure}

594: \begin{center}

595: {\includegraphics*[height=4.5cm,width=4.5cm]{fig8a.ps}

596: \includegraphics*[height=4.5cm,width=4.5cm]{fig8b.ps}}

597: {\includegraphics*[height=4.5cm,width=4.5cm]{fig8c.ps}}

598: \end{center}

599: \caption{The input SZE (left) and the filtered maps for the  optimal 

600: filter (center) and the discrete Daubechies wavelet filter (right), 

601: in an extreme case where the noise level in the maps is varied by a 

602: factor of several hundred.  The recovered maps shown here are in low 

603: noise regions, and in this case, the localized nature of the wavelet 

604: filter allows for a substantial improvement in the reconstruction.  

605: For realistic noise, this advantage is not detected in our maps.}

606: \label{fig:varynoise}

607: \end{figure}

608: 

609: \begin{thebibliography}{} 

610: 

611: \harvarditem{Bahcall et al.}{1999}{Bahcall99}

612:  Bahcall N., Ostriker J., Perlmutter S., Steinhardt P., 

613:  1999, Science, 284, 1481

614: 

615: \harvarditem{Bennett et al.}{2003}{Bennett03}

616:  Bennett C.L., et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 97 [astro-ph/0302208]

617: 

618: \harvarditem{Birkinshaw}{1999}{Birk99}

619:  Birkinshaw M., 1999, Phys. Rep., 310, 98

620: 

621: \harvarditem{Borys et al.}{2003}{Borys03}

622:  Borys C., Chapman S.C., Halpern M., Scott D., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 385 

623:  [astro-ph/0305444]

624: 

625: \harvarditem{Carlstrom, Holder, \& Reese}{2002}{Carl02}

626:  Carlstrom J., Holder G., Reese E., 2002, ARAA, 40, 643

627: 

628: \harvarditem{Cayon et al.}{2000}{Cayon00}

629:  Cayon L., et al., 2000, MNRAS, 315, 757

630: 

631: \harvarditem{Daubechies}{1992}{Daub92}

632:  Daubechies I., 1992, Ten Lectures on Wavelets, SIAM, Philadelphia

633: 

634: \harvarditem{Davis et al.}{1985}{Davis85}

635:  Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C.S., White S.D.M., 1985, ApJ, 292, 371

636: 

637: \harvarditem{Dawson et al.}{2001}{Dawson01}

638:  Dawson K.S., Holzapfel W.L., Carlstrom J.E., Joy M., LaRoque S.J., 

639:  Reese E.D., 2001, ApJ, 553, L1

640: 

641: \harvarditem{Holland et al.}{1999}{Holland99}

642:  Holland W.S, et al., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 659

643: 

644: \harvarditem{Maisinger, Hobson,  \& Lasenby}{2004}{Maisinger04}

645:  Maisinger K., Hobson M.P., Lasenby A.N., 2004, 

646:  MNRAS, 347, 339 [astro-ph/0303246]

647: 

648: \harvarditem{Mallat}{1999}{Mallat99}

649:  Mallat S., 1999, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, Academic Press

650: 

651: \harvarditem{Mason et al.}{2003}{Mason03}

652:  Mason B.S., et al., 2003, ApJ, 591, 540 [astro-ph/0205384]

653: 

654: \harvarditem{Pen}{1999}{Pen99}

655:  Pen U., 1999, Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc.Lond. A357, 2561 [astro-ph/9904170]

656: 

657: \harvarditem{Pierpaoli et al.}{2004}{Pierpaoli04}

658:  Pierpaoli E., Anthoine S., Huffenberger K., Daubechies I., 2004, 

659:  submitted to MNRAS [astro-ph/0412197]

660: 

661: \harvarditem{Press et al.}{1992}{Press92}

662:  Press W.H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T., Flannery B.P., 1992, 

663:  Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press

664: 

665: \harvarditem{Rephaeli}{1995}{Reph95}

666:  Rephaeli, Y., 1995, ARA\&A, 33, 541

667: 

668: \harvarditem{Rosati, Borgani, \& Norman}{2002}{RBN02}

669:  Rosati P., Borgani S., Norman C., 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 539

670: 

671: \harvarditem{Schulz \& White}{2003}{SW03}

672:  Schulz A., White M., 2003, ApJ, 586, 723 [astro-ph/0210667]

673: 

674: \harvarditem{Seljak \& Zaldarriaga}{1996}{SeZa96}

675:  Seljak U., Zaldarriaga M., 1996, ApJ, 469, 437

676: 

677: \harvarditem{Sunyaev \& Zel'dovich}{1972}{SZ72}

678:  Sunyaev R.A., Zel'dovich Ya. B., 1972, Comm. Astrophys. Space Phys., 4, 173

679: 

680: \harvarditem{Sunyaev \& Zel'dovich}{1980}{SZ80}

681:  Sunyaev R.A., Zel'dovich Ya. B., 1980, ARA\&A, 18, 537

682: 

683: \harvarditem{Tegmark \& de Oliveira-Costa}{1998}{Tegmark98}

684:  Tegmark M., de Oliveira-Costa A., 1998, ApJ, 500, L83 [astro-ph/9802123]

685: 

686: \harvarditem{Voit}{2004}{Voit04}

687: Voit G.M., 2004, Rev. Mod. Phys. (in press) [astro-ph/0410173]

688: 

689: \harvarditem{White}{2003}{White03}

690:  White M., 2003, ApJ, 597, 650 [astro-ph/0302371]

691: 

692: \harvarditem{White, Hernquist \& Springel}{2002}{WHS02}

693:  White M., Hernquist L., Springel V., 2002, ApJ, 579, 16 [astro-ph/0205437]

694: 

695: \harvarditem{White \& Majumdar}{2004}{WM04}

696:  White M., Majumdar S., 2004, ApJ, 602, 565 [astro-ph/0308464]

697: 

698: \end{thebibliography}

699: \end{document}

700: